Capitalism and health care

Gouging during a disaster is a common criticism of anti-regulation attitudes. Water is in short supply, so you charge 2,000 dollars a bottle. I think that's something we can all agree is unethical.

But what about the person struck with terminal cancer. As much a disaster as a water shortage, yet they get bled for all their worth. Is this any more ethical then gouging the person dying of thirst after a storm? What's the difference?

The cancer victim isn't exactly in a position to haggle. Oh, sure, they can shop around before a disaster, but almost everybody gets bled out in the end... They're a business, and if you're a captive consumer with a limited budget and an insurance cap, that's not your problem, is it?

Isn't that the health care industry in a nutshell?

I guess you can look at it from those views. I am not saying you are wrong, it’s just one way to look at it.

I honestly wants for everyone to get help. But that’s only if we lived in a perfect world, and Mankind aren’t ruled by greed. But at the same time, the world is a dog eat world dog, the fittest survives and the weak suffers.

It’s not just capitalism, it’s just nature.

Other countries prove health care is definitively sustainable. Greed dominates and those who don’t see it are ignorant imo.

Originally posted by cdtm
Isn't that the health care industry in a nutshell?

Is that your experience? That isn't mine. Now I will say I was a part of the insurance business for over 10 years, I don't like the model of making money while providing care.

Universal health care has its ups and downs, I think the USA could benefit from said system BUT don't think it is a system that will make everyone not sick and treat everyone the same, it doesn't.

The UK and Canadian models are definitely superior to the US one. I don't see why, as a developed people, we can't provide healthcare as a right whilst also having private healthcare for those who can or want to pay. Same as schooling, etc. It's just better for society overall, as far as I can tell.

Originally posted by Scribble
The UK and Canadian models are definitely superior to the US one. I don't see why, as a developed people, we can't provide healthcare as a right whilst also having private healthcare for those who can or want to pay. Same as schooling, etc. It's just better for society overall, as far as I can tell.

The smarter part of the discussion isn't if we should do it , it's how we do it. That is something if done well and communicated clearly would be a huge win for the US. Unfortunately politics tends to cloud the issue and create sides where no one really wins.

Originally posted by snowdragon
The smarter part of the discussion isn't if we should do it , it's how we do it. That is something if done well and communicated clearly would be a huge win for the US. Unfortunately politics tends to cloud the issue and create sides where no one really wins.

Also, I just realised that my initial post makes me seem like I'm from the US (I'm actually from the UK), so sorry about that, bad wording on my part.

According to someone who works in the drug industry, Obamacare wouldn't have done much for core problems like, say, a hospital overpaying for anti-venom by 3000%, then moving the zero over so a patient needs to mortgage their home to afford it. Meanwhile, you can buy the same stuff for 100 dollars in Mexico.

Originally posted by cdtm
According to someone who works in the drug industry, Obamacare wouldn't have done much for core problems like, say, a hospital overpaying for anti-venom by 3000%, then moving the zero over so a patient needs to mortgage their home to afford it. Meanwhile, you can buy the same stuff for 100 dollars in Mexico.

Thats because it didn't correct the issue of the contracts between insurance providers and the providers themselves.

It attempted to minimize the loss to the consumer but it didn't do a good job in dealing with the money itself.

It's worth noting when discussing Obamacare that the original idea was to implement a public option into the system, thereby allowing basically anyone to buy into medicare if they so wished. They were, I believe, one vote short on this, so they had to scrap that part of it.

Originally posted by Scribble
I don't see why, as a developed people, we can't provide healthcare as a right whilst also having private healthcare for those who can or want to pay.

I'm not sure that's the answer, if private healthcare were to be outlawed then it would improve universal healthcare IMO as rich or poor you'll be treated largely the same, The impetus would be on everyone to opt in to this as your money wont save you.

Originally posted by samhain
I'm not sure that's the answer, if private healthcare were to be outlawed then it would improve universal healthcare IMO as rich or poor you'll be treated largely the same, The impetus would be on everyone to opt in to this as your money wont save you.

I agree with this idea. Many people would call it un-American (a term I ****ing loathe, because it assumes the status quo is the best way), but most are getting milked by private insurance companies and would go bankrupt after severe medical problems, while the wealthy are largely unaffected by the costs. It's stupid not to support such a system, but [something-something freedom] and [something-something socialism], I guess.

Originally posted by samhain
I'm not sure that's the answer, if private healthcare were to be outlawed then it would improve universal healthcare IMO as rich or poor you'll be treated largely the same, The impetus would be on everyone to opt in to this as your money wont save you.

Whilst I draw the line at private police forces and prisons, having a private side to healthcare seems fair to me.

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
I agree with this idea. Many people would call it un-American (a term I ****ing loathe, because it assumes the status quo is the best way), but most are getting milked by private insurance companies and would go bankrupt after severe medical problems, while the wealthy are largely unaffected by the costs.

Yeah, pretty sure we fought a bloody war against the British because the British were bleeding us of our money and not giving us much in return.

Seems American healthcare insurance companies are actually unamerican. hmm

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yeah, pretty sure we fought a bloody war against the British because the British were bleeding us of our money and not giving us much in return.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yeah, pretty sure we fought a bloody war against the British because the British were bleeding us of our money and not giving us much in return.

Seems American healthcare insurance companies are actually unamerican. hmm

It's not that the taxes were too high, it's that we were taxed, without representation.

In summary, if you want to apply law to people, you need to give them a say in what the law is.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
No, not really. Brits lowered the taxes in response to colonist protest.

It's not that the taxes were too high, it's that we were taxed, without representation.

In summary, if you want to apply law to people, you need to give them a say in what the law is.

At least that's what I heard from a guy on Cracked.com. It's very possible that using pushing a skewed perspective of the whole thing.

Originally posted by darthgoober
Not really. I mean yeah the British did technically impose a lot of taxes on us, but they knew weren't exactly wealthy so the Tea Tax was the only one they insisted that we pay. And honestly... they deserved to milk quite a bit of money from us. The whole reason they started with the severe taxes is because America disobey British orders and attacked France which also forced the British to go to war with them. That's also why they started restricting our access to guns. When you get right down to it, our founding fathers were pretty much assholes...

No, the British were taxing the colonials and the colonials were not getting much in return, similar to how many view insurance:

https://www.hoover.org/research/colonial-roots-american-taxation-1607-1700

And the British thought that the Americans must pay for the 10,000 garrisoned troops that remained in the colonies after the French and Indian War:

It appeared to the British government that a few new taxes to pay for their garrison should be easily absorbed. Indeed, they had to be absorbed, because there simply didn’t seem to be any other way of paying for the army. Few in Britain expected the colonists to have protection and not pay for it.

https://www.thoughtco.com/why-britain-attempted-tax-american-colonists-1222028

Colonial taxes:
Taxes to pay for protection in case a situation comes up to where you need assistance.

American Health Insurance:
Insurance to pay for protection in case a situation comes up to where you need assistance.

And taxation without representation is what got the British into hot water. As I've posted about MANY times, the majority of Americans are not represented in the government.

Here it is again:

That's taxation and Health Insurance policy without representation.

Here's another fact for you: a majority of Americans now want universal healthcare:

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/383015-poll-slim-majority-of-americans-support-single-payer-health-care

As time goes on, this margin keeps growing.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, the British were taxing the colonials and the colonials were not getting much in return, similar to how many view insurance:

https://www.hoover.org/research/colonial-roots-american-taxation-1607-1700

And the British thought that the Americans must pay for the 10,000 garrisoned troops that remained in the colonies after the French and Indian War:

Originally posted by darthgoober
Of course didn't get much out of it. The taxes weren't levied as a cost for services that were currently being rendered...

AHA! Gotcha!

So it IS like American's Health Insurance system! aaahahahahahahahaha

😈 😈 😈 😈 😈 😈 😈 😈 😈

Mission "darthgoober Freedom" accomplished.

If you didn't read my post and then laugh, roll your eyes, or say, "Sh*t, d*mmit, f***!", then I didn't "mission accomplish" my invasion into your mind.